Case 3201933/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Miah v Tesco plc — 2019
- Case reference
- 3201933/2019
- Decision date
- 6 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brook
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Miah
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was listed for a case management hearing on 14 November 2019. The Respondent attended through counsel, but the Claimant did not attend and was not represented.
The Tribunal recorded that correspondence had been sent to the Claimant at the email address held on file, but there had been no response to the Tribunal or to the Respondent. A strike out warning had been sent on 21 September 2019 requiring the Claimant to show reasons by 20 October 2019 why the claim should not be struck out for want of jurisdiction, and no reasons had been received.
On the Respondent's application, Employment Judge Brook struck out the Claimant's claims, which were dismissed. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the Claimant's claims were struck out and dismissed after non-attendance and no response to a strike out warning. The judgment text does not set out the individual causes of action; this classification follows the listing category/context. | Struck out | — | — |
| Sexual orientation discrimination | The judgment states that the Claimant's claims were struck out and dismissed after non-attendance and no response to a strike out warning. The judgment text does not set out the individual causes of action; this classification follows the listing category/context. | Struck out | Sexual orientation | — |
| Gender reassignment discrimination | The listing category refers to 'Transexualism'. The judgment itself does not set out the individual causes of action and only records that the claims were struck out and dismissed. | Struck out | Gender reassignment | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment states that the Claimant's claims were struck out and dismissed after non-attendance and no response to a strike out warning. The judgment text does not set out the individual causes of action; this classification follows the listing category/context. | Struck out | — | — |
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.